| Localboy80 22.09.2006 06:26 |
Hi there, friends! Now I personally think Freddie has the best voice of all time. I say that, because out of all the artists I listen to, including artists with wonderful, unique, extraordinary voices, such as Elvis, Roy Orbison etc... I still think Freddie has the most powerful, strong and varied voice/vocals I have ever heard. The thing is, I am also realistic. My opinion is not based on my technical knowledge of singing or vocal range and power etc... It is just my personal opinion regarding what I have heard and can try and establish for myself. Now my brother loves Freddie and Queen but he is a bigger Elvis fan. Elvis to him is like Queen to me. He has highlighted to me, that although Freddie's voice was excellent, it was also very 'dodgy' at times. A prime example he has given, is near the end of the song 'Time', where Freddie hits and holds the word 'Waits', just before the ' ...For nobody, nobody, nobody... For no-one'. Now my brother feels that the way he sings that part is very strained and forced out. Now I can see where he is coming from but I am genuinely not in a position to agree or disagree. To me, I could be biased and just say that is the way Freddie wanted to sing that line/note, or I can be of the mind to say that it does sound strained. So, over to the vocal/singing experts, what are you opinions? Cheers! |
| Togg 22.09.2006 06:50 |
I'm no singing expert but I have done a lot over the years and recorded a lot of others as well. I think Freddie had an extensive range, to be honest I suspect it was considerably greater than Elvis's but yes towards the top end he would sound strained, he did like to push the envelope when singing a line and part of his vocal characteristics was to have a rasp at the top end. Elvis never sang in that way, he had a much deeper voice and rarely went for the top notes with the same aggression. Both are great, You also have to remember in Elvis's day you didn't sing like Freddie it was not acceptable you had to hit the note true and accurately, by the late 70's it was much more acceptable to be allover the place. Look at Bob Dillon a fantastic voice but not pure like that of say Elvis. Lou Reed is another, a great singer but does he ever hit the note?? I think they are just different styles, could Elvis sing a Queen song, sure, not in the same register though. |
| FriedChicken 22.09.2006 08:26 |
Technically Freddie wasn't a very good singer. He had range and a great sounding voice. But he wasn't a trained singer. And you can hear that very well, especially live. The first few dates from a tour were great, but after the 7th or so show his voice would become worse and worse. He couldn't sing the high notes anymore, shouted more than real singing etc. |
| violonbleu 22.09.2006 08:26 |
The best voice of all time? NO! The best voice of all time...if you don't include all the great CLASSICAL MUSIC singers. But the greatest popular voice that we remember, and can hear again, yes, probably. That's my opinion :-) |
| Sebastian 22.09.2006 08:41 |
I've always regarded Freddie as a studio singer. His best vocals were on the albums, especially when he did all of the backing choirs himself (e.g. You Take My Breath Away). Live he was a showman, in the studio he was a musician. Elvis had a great voice indeed, and many tend to put him down because, allegedly, there wasn't much competition, but IMO that's false: there were very good singers in that era, and Elvis somehow made his way to the elite. He deserved the fame he'd got. |
| Fireplace 22.09.2006 09:04 |
Localboy80 wrote: Now my brother loves Freddie and Queen but he is a bigger Elvis fan. Elvis to him is like Queen to me. He has highlighted to me, that although Freddie's voice was excellent, it was also very 'dodgy' at times. A prime example he has given, is near the end of the song 'Time', where Freddie hits and holds the word 'Waits', just before the ' ...For nobody, nobody, nobody... For no-one'. Now my brother feels that the way he sings that part is very strained and forced out. Now I can see where he is coming from but I am genuinely not in a position to agree or disagree. To me, I could be biased and just say that is the way Freddie wanted to sing that line/note, or I can be of the mind to say that it does sound strained. So, over to the vocal/singing experts, what are you opinions? Cheers!I happen to agree with the part about Time (and also In My Defence). I find both songs sounding strained and somehow unpleasant vocally. That says very little about Freddie though, just listen to the middle part of Mother Love, sung just months before his death. Time happens to be a bad example of his singing skills, that's all. He could do much, much better. |
| on my way up 22.09.2006 10:37 |
Fireplace wrote:I agree , In My defence and Time are strained!! He could do better , even in that period. I think 'One year of love' sounds great!!Localboy80 wrote: Now my brother loves Freddie and Queen but he is a bigger Elvis fan. Elvis to him is like Queen to me. He has highlighted to me, that although Freddie's voice was excellent, it was also very 'dodgy' at times. A prime example he has given, is near the end of the song 'Time', where Freddie hits and holds the word 'Waits', just before the ' ...For nobody, nobody, nobody... For no-one'. Now my brother feels that the way he sings that part is very strained and forced out. Now I can see where he is coming from but I am genuinely not in a position to agree or disagree. To me, I could be biased and just say that is the way Freddie wanted to sing that line/note, or I can be of the mind to say that it does sound strained. So, over to the vocal/singing experts, what are you opinions? Cheers!I happen to agree with the part about Time (and also In My Defence). I find both songs sounding strained and somehow unpleasant vocally. That says very little about Freddie though, just listen to the middle part of Mother Love, sung just months before his death. Time happens to be a bad example of his singing skills, that's all. He could do much, much better. |
| Al TurHao 22.09.2006 11:25 |
I may be alone in here but... "Time" and specially "In My Defence", have superb vocals. Mind you that In my defence was a One-Take vocal, if you don't count the ad-libs. I think it's useless to point out the best voice of all time. Some people have great voices, but can't quite control it, others do not have that much of a voice, but do wonders with what they have (ex. Paul Simon). Freddie had a magnificent voice and he knew what he was doing!! Of course he avoided the high notes live and sometimes missed a couple ones, but like sebastian said, live he was mostly a performer. Finally, I ask you this: How about the vocal "performance"?? Deliverance, diversity, creativity, inteligence while singing, charisma? Give me (not a good guitar), but a singer who totals all of the above and beats Freddie. |
| drwinston 22.09.2006 11:49 |
Togg wrote: Look at Bob Dillon a fantastic voice but not pure like that of say Elvis.Bob Dillon? Fantastic voice? I thought you meant Bob Dylan, but the fantastic voice part has me confused... Freddie pushed his voice hard, and he did it alot. Sometimes the result was sketchy, but other times it was remarkable. I think his vocals on Gimme the Prize is a good example. Not a great song, but his vocal performance is amazing. As for the best voice, I think even Freddie would agree that it's hard to top Aretha Franklin. |
| Rotwang 22.09.2006 11:52 |
I have had several years of vocal training (a work in progress) and I agree that Freddie's voice is THE best recorded voice I've ever encountered. His voice can fit any style of music and it fits. Some artists try different sytles and it just doesn't sound right. I agree that Freddie's voice in the late 80's sounded more strained but I personally think this is a smoking issue. Listen to My Fairy King and then listen to I Want It All. The smoking gave a "gravelly" sound to his voice but he kept, and maybe even, expanded his vocal range (excluding his falsetto). I personally think Freddie's tone was the best in the News of the World - The Game era. If I were a producer I would have suggested to Freddie that he sing a different word or series of notes to the "Wait" line in Time that you mentioned. I am certainly no expert but because Freddie took no formal vocal training (I think. Please don't murder me if I'm wrong.) he was able to train his own voice and use it in ways no other vocalist has or even can. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 22.09.2006 11:56 |
I have been trained as a vocalist since middle school, and indeed was a vocal music performance major for my first year at University, so I'm pretty familiar with the technical stuff reguarding the voice. Freddie had an amazing voice for a few reasons: He had a vocal range that is very hard to beat. He also had amazing clarity and warmth of tone within that range. Anyone can expand their range, but to do it in a way that it sounds decent at both extremes is something you can't really train, and Freddie had that. Not to mention the emotion that he could put into his voice for songs. He was a natural singer. He was also able to change the timbre of his voice for different songs...for example he sounds alot different in "Seven Seas of Rhye" than he does in "Bohemian Rhapsody". He had a natural musical ear, and was a good judge of what would fit best with which pieces of music. That being said, he wasn't the best vocalist in the world. He wasn't properly trained, which isn't neccessarily a bad thing, but you can tell when he sings live that he's forcing out the sounds due to improper breathing techniques and not lifting the soft palate. That explains why his voice was always crap at the end of the shows, he was forcing his vocal chords to work harder than they should have had to. That is also one of the major reasons he got vocal nodules...he was abusing his vocal chords. Some proper techniques of breathing and soft palate lifting would have helped, but it's possible it might have changed his sound as well, and that's probably the reason he never did it. He was also a smoker for a period of time, and you might as well hack your vocal chords with a knife if you are going to do that. However, once he quit smoking, his voice returned in a big way, and I think that a lot of his last stuff was the best vocally. But his singing was still amazing, and he's one of my favorite singers to this day....the sound he could produce, while not vocally wonderful on a technical scale, was still extemely pleasant to listen to and fit in very well with Queen and the music they did. |
| deleted user 22.09.2006 12:08 |
What made Freddie a great singer was not his vocal range (which spanned an impressive 3 1/2 octaves)but the wit, charisma and uniqueness he somehow managed to project through his voice. He wasn't a well-trained singer (although at school he sang in a choir) he was blessed with that voice naturally. Technically he could have done with some training, he had a tendency to force his voice to reach the higher notes, just as I need to do being stubbornly alto, in the eighties and live. But, much better than I am able to do, he could sing in falsetto beautifully in the seventies. Throughout his career Freddie always knew exactly how wanted his voice to sound. It's a reason for his smoking, he liked his eighties 'husky' voice, but when Freddie needed to tackle songs like 'My Fairy King' he was excellent, in the studio at manipulating his voice to make it sound however he wanted it too. Indeed in the first two albums he sounded very feminine and was able to manipulate even that quality to give a beautiful sound. I think we should feel grateful that Freddie had no real training. If he had been taught to sing then he wouldn'tve had the originality that he did have. Freddie did have a gift. It was Brian who told us how Freddie spent the first 4 albums 'refining his art'. Freddie knew his limits and knew his strengths and used them to their fullest extent. And that's what makes him one of the best ROCK singers. Or popular music singers. |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.09.2006 12:25 |
Elvis was a thoroughly mediocre singer who had the luck of having a pretty voice. He didn't use more than 1 1/2 octaves of it, though. |
| Micrówave 22.09.2006 13:24 |
What Elvis had going for him is that no one was doing what he was doing at the time, not his vocal range. Songs were carefully chosen for him based on how he could perform the song, because no one could do it like Elvis. Freddie wrote his masterpieces. And they weren't written based on how he'd perform them live. Tough to compare the two. Totally different context. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 22.09.2006 13:30 |
That's an abosultely excellent analysis BowieQueen. Singers with a bigger range (Mariah Carey, Celine dion) lack the "wit, charisma and uniqueness" that Freddie had. Freddie knew how to deliver a song in all genres, which is not unique to the rock world, but pretty infrequent. Brian has called Love of my Life one of music's finest vocals, and it's a beautiful ballad. Flip things to the heavy end, and his work on It's Late is breathtaking. The power and control and hurt on his voice is amazing on It's Late. Such a shame that outside of the Queen world the song is virtually unknown. |
| Bobby_brown 22.09.2006 14:14 |
Al TurHao wrote: I may be alone in here but... "Time" and specially "In My Defence", have superb vocals. Mind you that In my defence was a One-Take vocal, if you don't count the ad-libs.You´re not alone in here, and what i find interesting is the fact that people forgot that Freddie was singing "Time" for the musical. So, you hear Freddie singing the high notes the way he wanted you to hear! When someone showed "Time" to Sir Laurence Olivier (if i´m not mistaken), he said something like: "this is a great actor". So if you read the lyrics of that song you´ll realise why he sings that way. And all the theories of the trained voice to me means nothing!! What is a well trained vocalist?- someone who took lessons?- They all sound the same. Freddie was natural! Of course Freddie could save is voice for the tours. He could just stand still on stage and concentrate purelly on his voice!-got the point? He gave it all, and what about the "TSMGO"?- The Barcelona album? And what does Montserrat Caballe- she has worked with the best- says about Freddie´s voice? Before you guys judge a performance, try to figure out the context of that performance. On time he sounded like that, but in the same year on the song "It´s a hard life" he reaches the high note easilly!!(I did it for loooove...)- This is what Freddie´s all about. He created different moods for different songs. That´s the diference between Freddie and the well trained singers- He never repeats himself, and that you can´t learn, you´re born with it!! Take care |
| Localboy80 22.09.2006 14:32 |
Absolutely brilliant responses and replies, friends! I entirely agree with most that has been said, especially about the way he delivered songs and how he sang them. Out of pure curiosity, I think 'The Show Must Go On' is his best studio vocal and 'Somebody To Love' from Milton Keynes, 1982 was his best live vocal. Don't get me wrong, there are so many studio songs and live performances to choose from but these two stand out for me. I mean, 'My Fairy King', 'Spread Your Wings', 'Love Of My Life', 'It's Late', just to name a few more studio performances and all of Live Aid, 'Bohemian Rhapsody' at Newcastle and 'A Kind Of Magic' at Stockholm, 1986, to just name a few live performances! |
| Fireplace 22.09.2006 14:43 |
Bobby_brown wrote:For someone who doesn't believe in training, you sure dish out some lessons! All trained vocalists sound the same? To a deaf person, perhaps.Al TurHao wrote: I may be alone in here but... "Time" and specially "In My Defence", have superb vocals. Mind you that In my defence was a One-Take vocal, if you don't count the ad-libs.And all the theories of the trained voice to me means nothing!! What is a well trained vocalist?- someone who took lessons?- They all sound the same. -------------snip------------------------- Before you guys judge a performance, try to figure out the context of that performance. -------------snip------------------------- |
| AspiringPhilosophe 22.09.2006 15:31 |
Fireplace wrote:Bobby_brown wrote:For someone who doesn't believe in training, you sure dish out some lessons! All trained vocalists sound the same? To a deaf person, perhaps.Al TurHao wrote: I may be alone in here but... "Time" and specially "In My Defence", have superb vocals. Mind you that In my defence was a One-Take vocal, if you don't count the ad-libs.And all the theories of the trained voice to me means nothing!! What is a well trained vocalist?- someone who took lessons?- They all sound the same. Exactly. Not all trained vocalists sound the same, or we would only have 4 vocalists in the whole world, one for each range. But you can tell when someone singing has been trained or not. Personally, I'm glad that Freddie never got training....he was so naturally gifted that he would have sounded much different. The emotion that he puts into his songs is something that is amazing. It's just a shame to listen to some of the end shows from the tours, because I know how much his throat had to be killing him at the end of the show, and then having the nodules that could have ended his singing career. He's still an amazing singer though, and an even better stage performer. The world of music lost a great persona when we lost him. -------------snip------------------------- Before you guys judge a performance, try to figure out the context of that performance. -------------snip------------------------- |
| kagezan1313 22.09.2006 16:02 |
1. Freddie smoked heavily, which toughens and damages the soft tissue of the vocal folds. 2. Freddie drank quite a bit, which dries the vocal folds - not a good thing, especially right before a performance. 3. Freddie did a lot of cocaine, which causes post-nasal drip into the throat and further damages the vocal folds when singing under the influence. So, he pretty much, due to his lifestyle broke every rule in the singer's vocal care book, and it took it's toll over the years - he had a lot of issues with vocal nodes as well, a byproduct of self-abuse. Compare 1973 Freddie with 1986 Freddie, and you'll see the degradation. On the other end, compare his vocals in 1991, and you'll see that his quitting those bad habits helped his vocals rebound quite a bit, even though he was dying. So, all said, if Freddie had taken care of his voice as, say, an opera singer would, he'd have never had that gravelly texture to his voice in the 80's. But he was still the best, and that "strained" line could just as easily have been executed that way for dramatic effect. Listen to Barcelona and you'll see he could still smooth it out when he wanted to for the power notes. |
| BRYCE THE TROLL 22.09.2006 16:11 |
from what i've learnd freddie WAS a good singer however it seems he did everything possible to fuck up his larynx** (**also known as the voice box, the home of the vocal cords/folds) first of all he was a smoker! all air (includeing smoke) has to go through the larynx to get to the lungs. When and if smoke goes through the larynx (or more spicificly the vocal cords they can dry out and then get cracks. in order to relise the full extent of the damage this acculay causes you must first under stand how the vocal cords work the vocal cords/folds work by vibrating together i.e. for a lower note they vibrate slower as for a higher note well... the higher the note the more VPS (vibrations per second) the problem these cracks (caused by smoking) present is if one of them works itself out to the side of the vocal cord then the two cords can't close properly and there's a hole in your sound production wich is........bad the second thing he did that is a litle less obviously dangerous like you mentiond in the starting of the artical freddie had moments where he pushed sound out (using mainly the throught, instead of using the lungs and diaphram proplery to produce sound) this is not a smart thing to do becuse the final result can be vocal nodles (wich he had!) what are nodles? nodles are.... well.... to put it simplely as i can nodles are bumps that form on the vocal cords/folds and get in the way of the vibrations needed for sound production well that's all i have to say oh here's a picture of the vocal cords: link |
| BRYCE THE TROLL 22.09.2006 16:18 |
BRYCE ON FIRE wrote: from what i've learnd freddie WAS a good singer however it seems he did everything possible to fuck up his larynx** (**also known as the voice box, the home of the vocal cords/folds) first of all he was a smoker! all air (includeing smoke) has to go through the larynx to get to the lungs. When and if smoke goes through the larynx (or more spicificly the vocal cords) they can dry out and then get cracks. in order to relise the full extent of the damage this acculay causes you must first under stand how the vocal cords work the vocal cords/folds work by vibrating together i.e. for a lower note they vibrate slower as for a higher note well... the higher the note the more VPS (vibrations per second) the problem these cracks (caused by smoking) present is if one of them works itself out to the side of the vocal cord then the two cords can't close properly and there's a hole in your sound production wich is........bad the second thing he did that is a litle less obviously dangerous like you mentiond in the starting of the artical freddie had moments where he pushed sound out (using mainly the throught, instead of using the lungs and diaphram proplery to produce sound) this is not a smart thing to do becuse the final result can be vocal nodles (wich he had!) what are nodles? nodles are.... well.... to put it simplely as i can nodles are bumps that form on the vocal cords/folds and get in the way of the vibrations needed for sound production well that's all i have to say oh here's a picture of the vocal cords: link |
| Bobby_brown 22.09.2006 16:46 |
Fireplace wrote:I never said i don´t believe in training!Bobby_brown wrote:For someone who doesn't believe in training, you sure dish out some lessons! All trained vocalists sound the same? To a deaf person, perhaps.Al TurHao wrote: I may be alone in here but... "Time" and specially "In My Defence", have superb vocals. Mind you that In my defence was a One-Take vocal, if you don't count the ad-libs.And all the theories of the trained voice to me means nothing!! What is a well trained vocalist?- someone who took lessons?- They all sound the same. -------------snip------------------------- Before you guys judge a performance, try to figure out the context of that performance. -------------snip------------------------- I was talking about the tenors. With few exceptions they all sound the same, and that´s not even ther natural voices! If someone thinks it´s the best for him/her to have training, then do it. But to say that Freddie produced some beautifull sounds, but not on a technical level i really don´t understand the meaning of this. Who created such rules?- I mean, are there any rules, other than your ears and your heart? My ears tell me that he sings with his heart, and he reaches my heart. That is Freddie Mercury, he reached everybodys hearts, that´s why you see those messages on his site, both men and wemen saying: "We love you". Who cares if he didn´t follow any rules about how to sing? Mind you that all the greatest singers (or, more famous, with few exceptions!), and guitarplayers never got any lessons about how to do it. It all came from the heart! Take care |
| deleted user 22.09.2006 18:59 |
Elvis is overrated. |
| Micrówave 22.09.2006 19:23 |
OK. Then so is music in general. |
| eenaweena 23.09.2006 00:46 |
um... didn't freddie say once that he wanted to develop a raspy effect on his voice so he started smoking? it worked, but i guess the smoking went overboard. i agree with some of you that at some points his voice sounded strained. i'm no vocals expert, but i can hear the difference. :) |
| chefman5150 23.09.2006 06:36 |
Damn good replies in here... Freddie is my favorite singer hands down...there's alot of great singers out there, but none that deliver home the songs like Freddie did. And Elvis?? Please...he wass an innovator with his style of music, nothing more. Had some good songs, but his singing was just...ehh... Freddie did have alot of problems with his voice live in the mid-eighties...if any of you have the Birmingham show from 1984, that's a prime example. Also there was one or two shows in Japan '85 where his voice was just shot. Smoking didn't help, but touring extensively and being in different countries with different climates will do that to you too. In the studio, the guy was just the eighth wonder of the world, how he could get such notes out of him. Now speaking of the mid-80's shows/time era regarding his voice...when he had his voice in full force, there was nobody in the world that could have held a candle to that guy, at least as far as rock singers were concerned...maybe Steve Perry from Journey, but that's a whole different subject for another day. Listen to The Last Stand in Japan (5/15/85), and his voice is just unstoppable...Live Aid is a prime example too!! |
| Queen_Oz 23.09.2006 08:41 |
Well you can't really compare Elvis and Freddie's singing, totally different styles of music and presentation. Freddie did push his voice very hard and at times it showed. However, Elvis seemed to sing the same type of songs all the time that suited his voice very well, he never really pushed his voice to the extremes that Freddie did. That being said Elvis was great, but in my eyes Freddie was greater. My opinion only, no offence meant to Elvis fans. |
| NTL 23.09.2006 08:57 |
Has anyone seen the interview with Freddie done during the US Hot Space tour in which he says something like... "I get told off for smoking, but in the early days I used to try and look after my voice on tour and it would go after 7 or 8 shows. Now I smoke, drink, Im up all night, and that all seems to do the trick". Not exactly the correct words but along those lines. |
| Sebastian 23.09.2006 10:09 |
> And Elvis?? Please...he wass an innovator with his style of music, nothing more. Had some good songs, but his singing was just...ehh... The songs weren't his... |
| eenaweena 23.09.2006 10:36 |
yeah. i agree with sebastian. if i am not mistaken, elvis had most, if not all, of his songs were composed for him. in short, he's just another pretty face with a mediocre voice singing someone else's hardwork. |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.09.2006 10:42 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: yeah. i agree with sebastian. if i am not mistaken, elvis had most, if not all, of his songs were composed for him. in short, he's just another pretty face with a mediocre voice singing someone else's hardwork.All. He had some co-authorships, but that was just for reasons of royalties. He couldn't even come up with LYRICS, let alone music! |
| Bambi 23.09.2006 19:58 |
Elvis still sang beautiful, using different venues such as gospel, rock, and country, he had his loves of different styles of music, Freddie sang deep, deep within his soul he also sang beautiful Freddie could get the job done. |
| eenaweena 23.09.2006 23:13 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:oh. okay. sorry for that error i made. :)<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: yeah. i agree with sebastian. if i am not mistaken, elvis had most, if not all, of his songs were composed for him. in short, he's just another pretty face with a mediocre voice singing someone else's hardwork.All. He had some co-authorships, but that was just for reasons of royalties. He couldn't even come up with LYRICS, let alone music! |
| mike hunt 24.09.2006 01:13 |
the ignorance on this site!....elvis sang rock n roll, gospel, country, among other stlyes of music, so how does he sing the same style of music over and over?...The voice of elvis is more famous and loved than freddie will ever be. Even saying that, freddie is easily my personal favorite singer. |
| Crezchi 24.09.2006 01:40 |
I agree Elvis was great, i don't like his most popular hits and the whole Rock & Roll stuff, but i really love his Gospel music, very talented singer. He had a more tenorish and alot of vibrato in his voice when he sang gospel. :) |
| eenaweena 24.09.2006 04:25 |
mike hunt wrote: the ignorance on this site!....elvis sang rock n roll, gospel, country, among other stlyes of music, so how does he sing the same style of music over and over?...The voice of elvis is more famous and loved than freddie will ever be. Even saying that, freddie is easily my personal favorite singer.the musical style changed, but elvis' singing was quite consistent. he didn't crank it up a notch while freddie did. i get your point of view on the fame part, but i honestly feel that he doesn't deserve it. probably the beatles should be the kings of rock and roll, imo. |
| deleted user 24.09.2006 09:20 |
BRYCE ON FIRE wrote: from what i've learnd freddie WAS a good singer however it seems he did everything possible to fuck up his larynx** (**also known as the voice box, the home of the vocal cords/folds) first of all he was a smoker! all air (includeing smoke) has to go through the larynx to get to the lungs. When and if smoke goes through the larynx (or more spicificly the vocal cords they can dry out and then get cracks. in order to relise the full extent of the damage this acculay causes you must first under stand how the vocal cords work the vocal cords/folds work by vibrating together i.e. for a lower note they vibrate slower as for a higher note well... the higher the note the more VPS (vibrations per second) the problem these cracks (caused by smoking) present is if one of them works itself out to the side of the vocal cord then the two cords can't close properly and there's a hole in your sound production wich is........bad the second thing he did that is a litle less obviously dangerous like you mentiond in the starting of the artical freddie had moments where he pushed sound out (using mainly the throught, instead of using the lungs and diaphram proplery to produce sound) this is not a smart thing to do becuse the final result can be vocal nodles (wich he had!) what are nodles? nodles are.... well.... to put it simplely as i can nodles are bumps that form on the vocal cords/folds and get in the way of the vibrations needed for sound production well that's all i have to say oh here's a picture of the vocal cords: linkYEY !!! You're my new hero right now ! I was debating posting something like this, but I didn't really feel like it since I already did a few days before on another thread... |
| BRYCE THE TROLL 24.09.2006 17:09 |
<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:thanks! =oBRYCE ON FIRE wrote: from what i've learnd freddie WAS a good singer however it seems he did everything possible to fuck up his larynx** (**also known as the voice box, the home of the vocal cords/folds) first of all he was a smoker! all air (includeing smoke) has to go through the larynx to get to the lungs. When and if smoke goes through the larynx (or more spicificly the vocal cords they can dry out and then get cracks. in order to relise the full extent of the damage this acculay causes you must first under stand how the vocal cords work the vocal cords/folds work by vibrating together i.e. for a lower note they vibrate slower as for a higher note well... the higher the note the more VPS (vibrations per second) the problem these cracks (caused by smoking) present is if one of them works itself out to the side of the vocal cord then the two cords can't close properly and there's a hole in your sound production wich is........bad the second thing he did that is a litle less obviously dangerous like you mentiond in the starting of the artical freddie had moments where he pushed sound out (using mainly the throught, instead of using the lungs and diaphram proplery to produce sound) this is not a smart thing to do becuse the final result can be vocal nodles (wich he had!) what are nodles? nodles are.... well.... to put it simplely as i can nodles are bumps that form on the vocal cords/folds and get in the way of the vibrations needed for sound production well that's all i have to say oh here's a picture of the vocal cords: linkYEY !!! You're my new hero right now ! I was debating posting something like this, but I didn't really feel like it since I already did a few days before on another thread... |
| mike hunt 25.09.2006 00:52 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote:I think the beatles might have passed him in a way. I'm not the biggest elvis fan, but you have to admit freddie will never be loved like elvis is. Not that I give a shit.mike hunt wrote: the ignorance on this site!....elvis sang rock n roll, gospel, country, among other stlyes of music, so how does he sing the same style of music over and over?...The voice of elvis is more famous and loved than freddie will ever be. Even saying that, freddie is easily my personal favorite singer.the musical style changed, but elvis' singing was quite consistent. he didn't crank it up a notch while freddie did. i get your point of view on the fame part, but i honestly feel that he doesn't deserve it. probably the beatles should be the kings of rock and roll, imo. |
| Localboy80 25.09.2006 06:01 |
Again great responses, friends! Now I am a Queen fan through and through and I genuinely believe that Freddie was, is and always will be the greatest vocalist/singer of all time. Talent wise, if you are comparing him to Elvis, then there is no comparison. Now I am a big Elvis fan but the fact of the matter is that Freddie was an excellent writer of music and words and his delivery of songs was next to nothing. I know Elvis played the piano but nowhere near as good as Freddie. In my opinion, Freddie wins hands down. Add to that the way he controlled the crowd and his stage presence! Saying that, on the other side of the coin, I find it quite funny that some people have said Elvis was overrated and his voice was mediocre. Of course everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I believe Elvis to be the most stereotyped artist of all time. By that, I mean to the non Elvis fans, he was just a fat man, who loved burgers and peanut butter sandwiches, who had a shaky leg and went 'a-ha' with a raised lip. For some people to say Elvis' voice was mediocre, then I personally feel you are only aware of the songs such as 'Hound Dog', 'Blue Suede Shoes', 'All Shook Up' etc... Again, the stereotype coming into affect again with all the stereotypical songs being associated with Elvis. I know Elvis didn't write the songs but he was and still is the biggest recording artist of all time. There are so many songs that he sang and from so many different genres! Now I don't believe Elvis had a better voice than Freddie. Freddie could do things and attempted things Elvis never could but Elvis could sing pure raw, rock. All you have to do to witness this is to watch the Elvis Comeback Special from 1968. One of the best live performances I have seen. His voice is just full of raw energy. Elvis could also sing in a high tone quiet and falsetto. He sang rock, blues, rock 'n roll, funk, gospel, rhythm and blues, ballads, folk, Hawaiian and even rap ('US Mail' and 'Guitar Man'). I could give many examples of the range and power that Elvis had but one example, would be from one of Elvis' last concerts, when he was ill and he performed a song called 'Hurt'. The power and the note he hits and holds at the end of the song will show you exactly that Elvis had more than a mediocre voice. At the end of the day, there are many excellent vocalist, Roy Orbison being another one. I think Elvis was exceptional and to Freddie's credit, I think he was even better!!! What about the best live vocal Freddie has ever produced? Live Aid was exceptional! 'A Kind Of Magic' from Stockholm, 1986, was excellent but for me, his best live vocal performance was 'Somebody To Love' from Milton Keynes in 1982 was breathtaking!!! |
| Localboy80 26.09.2006 14:21 |
Any Elvis fan's agree? |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 26.09.2006 17:49 |
link Listen for yourselves. |
| maxpower 26.09.2006 20:50 |
Elvis was great listen to the 68 comeback special or "that's the way it is" specifically "just pretend" "i cant stop loving you" "patch it up" excellent, good grief try & sing "jailhouse rock" .. i know Freddie did it, but not as good as that 1957 recording be honest Freddie did force his vocals but for me it added character |
| Knute 26.09.2006 23:07 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: link Listen for yourselves.That's power! He hits Roy Obisonian heights there..lol Elvis and Freddie are both magnificant. |
| Localboy80 27.09.2006 06:11 |
Brilliant!!! Also, the way Elvis sings 'You've Lost That Loving Feeling' in 'The Way It Is', is fantastic! |
| The Real Wizard 27.09.2006 12:52 |
Sebastian wrote: Live he was a showman, in the studio he was a musician.That's a good way of putting it in a nutshell. But live, he still had a lot of amazing moments... 4-13-78, 12-4-79, 7-14-80, 6-5-82, 8-24-84, 5-9-85, 7-27-86, etc. I'll be the first to say that he didn't truly find his voice live until 79-80. NTL wrote: Has anyone seen the interview with Freddie done during the US Hot Space tour in which he says something like... "I get told off for smoking, but in the early days I used to try and look after my voice on tour and it would go after 7 or 8 shows. Now I smoke, drink, Im up all night, and that all seems to do the trick". Not exactly the correct words but along those lines.I've never heard this, but it sounds very interesting. Can you provide more info about the interview? Amazing Elvis that was posted, btw... and here it is in a bit better quality: link |
| Adam Baboolal 28.09.2006 06:27 |
Not to get into this little argument here, but didn't Elvis use backing singers to fill in those bigger vocal moments? So, it'd be someone else kind of covering for him, while he mimed a big note. Adam. |
| john bodega 28.09.2006 07:08 |
Miming is an exaggeration, but of course - using backup singers to strengthen certain moments isn't uncommon. But, the outgoing bits of that performance are still Elvis by himself - he sounds old and tired and strained anyway, but the impressive bits of him trying anyway are still just him on his own. In that video anyway. |
| Adam Baboolal 28.09.2006 08:28 |
No Zeb, you misunderstand what I was getting at. I didn't mean just having backing singers in general. But to actually sing the high note for him while he mimed he was doing it! I saw an interview where they were doing a section on Elvis. And when a backing singer was interviewed, he mentioned this little technique in those 70's shows. So, how often did that happen? Adam. |
| Crezchi 28.09.2006 08:31 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: No Zeb, you misunderstand what I was getting at. I didn't mean just having backing singers in general. But to actually sing the high note for him while he mimed he was doing it! I saw an interview where they were doing a section on Elvis. And when a backing singer was interviewed, he mentioned this little technique in those 70's shows. So, how often did that happen? Adam.You should listen to Elvis' more rare live recordings, especially the gospel tracks. He has no reason to mime. lol :P He sang gospel better than the typical 'Elvis' crap. lol |
| Bobby_brown 28.09.2006 14:52 |
If a backing singer could hit the high notes without people realising it wasn´t Elvis, why wouldn´t he try to record an album and make a career of his own? Take care |
| mircal 29.09.2006 04:52 |
Lets not forget.......... Freddie could sing like Elvis but Elvis couldnt sing like freddie.... and for all the smart ass's who wanna say Elvis never knew freddie, piss of, point is freddie could do so much more with his voice, more than any other front man or solo artist ever. |
| Localboy80 29.09.2006 13:43 |
Well, it is a pity Elvis died in 1977, I would love to have seena duet between the King and Queen! |
| The Real Wizard 29.09.2006 14:14 |
mircal wrote: Lets not forget.......... Freddie could sing like Elvis but Elvis couldnt sing like freddie.... and for all the smart ass's who wanna say Elvis never knew freddie, piss of, point is freddie could do so much more with his voice, more than any other front man or solo artist ever.Now that's just being closed-minded. Elvis did plenty of things Freddie never did, as have many other singers. Freddie wasn't the be-all and end-all of singing. |
| Localboy80 30.09.2006 09:03 |
Nice to see an open and non-biased reply, mate! |
| YourValentine 30.09.2006 21:35 |
btt |
| Localboy80 02.10.2006 14:34 |
At the end of the day, I find it quite funny that some people say Elvis did not have much of a voice. Just check out :- - 1) The Comeback Special 1968 - 2) The Way It Is (Vegas Years 1970 - 1973) - 3) The End Of The 1976 Tour (Dallas,Pittsburgh) And His Last Few Concerts When He Was Ill. |
| BRYCE THE TROLL 02.10.2006 22:25 |
yes he did force his vocals BUT it helped make it more dynamic and relayed the emotion better |
| Localboy80 07.10.2006 11:22 |
I agree! It sounds like there is more effort the way he sings! |
| Asterik 07.10.2006 17:56 |
I think Fred had a remarkable voice, he seemed to have this natural feel for when to put emphasis on lines, when to pause, when to switch to bark mode. He had such a variety of voices too, his gravelly hard rock voice, the falsetto for disco songs, the slightly frayed voice he used for orchestral songs; he was almost unique in his ability to adapt his voice to the demands of a track. For me, his most memorable live voice was in 1986. I'm aware that many disagree with me but the sheer power he demonstrated in WWTLF, TYMD and ITLOTG is startling. His voice recovered a lot of power from the Works Tours shows. My favourite studio voice was Innuendo because it was a combination of his powerful eighties voice with the subtle nuanced approach of the seventies. Parts of DTSH for example, could have been recorded in the seventies, such was the delicacy but he embellishes parts with the power of his later voice e.g. "treasure e-e-every moment" to good effect. His vocal line on IGSM is perfect, low and frayed like a disgruntled jazz singer, and then he follows up with a throaty bark on headlong. It could be two different singers. |
| john bodega 07.10.2006 23:54 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: No Zeb, you misunderstand what I was getting at. I didn't mean just having backing singers in general. But to actually sing the high note for him while he mimed he was doing it! I saw an interview where they were doing a section on Elvis. And when a backing singer was interviewed, he mentioned this little technique in those 70's shows. So, how often did that happen? Adam.Well... I dunno how often it happened. But it wasn't in that performance of Hurt. That is Elvis' voice. Either that, or the film "Bubba Ho Tep" just jumped up in credibility. |
| Localboy80 12.10.2006 13:40 |
Lol! I like that! |
